**# Deliberation 2.0 - OECD Catching the Deliberative Wave

Table of *Content*
[ToC]

## Context
The OECD’s Innovative Citizen Participation area of work explores the paradigm changes underway towards a more inclusive governance. The idea is to better understand the new forms of deliberative, collaborative, and participatory decision making that are happening, analysing what works well and what doesn’t, and asking how democratic institutions might change in the longer term as a result.

The first report of this workstream focuses on the use of deliberative processes by public institutions. *"Catching the Deliberative Wave: Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions"* (June 2020), is the first international empirical comparative study that considers the workings of deliberative processes for public decision-making and discuss the case for their institutionalisation.

The report focuses on many aspects of deliberative proccesses, but acknowledges that this is the first building block for more in-depth research on deliberation for public policy making. One area for further research and discussion is the use of digital tools to enrich deliberative processes.

The current situation and the aftermath effects of COVID-19 will certainly impact the way we interact and we exerce our daily (and civic) activities. As we write, millions of people are physically isolated and trying to continue business as normal. We are adapting to new tools and methods to make the most out of working from home and maintaining social connections with our friends, colleagues, and families.

The coronavirus outbreak also affects the organisation of ongoing or soon-to-be-started deliberative processes. The French and British Citizens' Assemblies on Climate, for example, are considering the use of digital conference tools to replace the physicial meetings that are postponed until further notice. Even longstanding traditional institutions like [the European Parliament](https://https://www.euractiv.com/section/health-consumers/news/european-parliament-considering-virtual-meetings-plenary-due-to-virus/), the [UK House of Commons](https://https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/parliament-coronavirus-uk-lockdown-government-electronic-voting-virtual-debates-2513751) and [the Lebanese Parliament](https://http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/270439-report-parliament-to-hold-online-legislative-meetings) are considering the use of video tools and electronic voting applications to replace face-to-face parliamentary debate and meetings. More modern organisations like [political parties](https://https://partipirate.org/et-le-parti-pirate-continua-de-tourner/) are also implementing digital tools to continue business as normal and could be an inspiration for our work.

The OECD Secretariat considers that this is a good time to open the discussion on the use of digital tools for deliberative processes. Rather than replacing face-to-face with digital deliberation, we want to collect all the relevant evidence on how can digital tools can enhance and support analogue deliberative processes. Even if the focus will be given to the use of ICT and tools, the goal is to contribute to the general discussion and framework on deliberative processes for policy-making. Said differently, for the matter of these publications, digital tools are the means to an end, not an end in itself.

## Topics

### 1: How can digital tools support deliberative processes?

Deliberative processes are one part of the wider systemic change needed to involve ordinary citizens in policy making, in a way that allows them to contribute informed, collective policy recommendations.

When conducted effectively, they can lead to better policy outcomes and enable policy makers to take hard decisions. They also have the potential to enhance trust between citizens and government and be a mechanism for wider public learning if public communication is leveraged effectively.

We acknowledge that the potential of deliberation is closely linked to the physical interaction between participants. Trust and empathy are prequisites for constructive deliberation, and we do not have enough evidence to conclude that digital deliberation can equal the quality of face-to-face deliberation.

Following this initial hypothesis, digital tools should aim to support deliberative processes but not to act as a full replacement of face-to-face deliberation. The current context obliges us to think outside the box and adapt to the inability of physical deliberation. It could also push us to consider other ways to deliberate when face-to-face is not possible in situations like:

- lack of ressources to convene all participants in the same physical space
- countries with big territories
- international processes
- simultaneous processes
- natural disaster or any uncoventional situation that prevents physical gathering

It is important to build on the research done by [MySociety](https://https://research.mysociety.org/publications/digital-tools-citizens-assemblies) and [NESTA](https://https://www.nesta.org.uk/blog/three-ideas-blending-digital-and-deliberative-democracy/) and many other innovators and practitioners to analyse the state of the art in terms of digital support for deliberative processes.

The OECD Secretariat proposes to structure its coverage of this topic according to the core phases of a deliberative process established in the forthcoming OECD report: learning, deliberation, decision-making, and collective recommendations. Due to the different nature of conducting a process online, we will additionally consider a phase required before learning: skills training.

> How can digital tools be used to adapt the core phases of deliberative processes in the current context?
> 1. Skills training: Acknowledging that there are digital divides when it comes to using online tools in general, what form and length of skills training might be required for the following stages to be able to take place in a digital environment?
> 2. Learning: Can digital tools replace and/or support the physical learning phase whilst respecting the principles required for this stage? Which methods and tools are available for learning and sharing knowledge online? Is there any evidence or case study to support that learning can be properly done through digital tools? Additionally, the learning stage is when a wide range of stakeholders have an opportunity to provide submissions that are shared with participants (and should be available to the wider public). What digital tools can enhance the stakeholder submission process and presentation of these submissions?
> 3. Deliberation: Can digital tools replace and/or support the physical deliberative phase whilst respecting the principles required for this stage? Which methods and tools are available for deliberation online? Is there any evidence or case study to support that deliberation can be properly done through digital tools?
> https://cdd.stanford.edu/2019/automateddeliberationplatform/
> 4. Decision-making: Can digital tools replace and/or support the decision-making phase whilst respecting the principles required for this stage? Which methods and tools are available for collective decion-making online? Is there any evidence or case study to support that decision-making can be properly done through digital tools?
> 4. Recommendations: Can digital tools replace and/or support the crowdsourcing of recommendtions whilst respecting the principles required for this stage? Which tools and methodologies are available for collaborative writing online?

National parliaments, universities, and international companies are considering the use of digital tools to adapt to the methods and dynamics of the 21st century. This research could get inspiration from the practices of the previously mentioned institutions to adapt the core phases of a deliberative process and propose trusthworthy alternatives solutions based on the use of digital tools.

Besides publications and research on this topic, a compenidum of available tools and evidence gathered around the world could be published. This collaborative database could help deliberative process organisers to choose the appropriate digital tool.

### 2: Can digital tools enable public authorities to implement the OECD Good Practice Principles for deliberative processes?

The use of the right set of digital tools could enhance deliberative processes in different areas.

Technology is not neutral, but some standards and good practices could enhance the design and organisation of deliberative processes. The forthcoming OECD report on deliberative processes includes transparency, accountability, and evaluation as part of the 12 Principles of Good Practice for Deliberative Processes for Public Decision-making. This topic focuses on the use of digital tools to improve a deliberative process and better implement the Good Practice Principles.

#### Transparency and accountability

- **Sortition**: the publication of the code and the algorithms applied for the sortition process and the data or statistics used for the stratification gives total transparency on how participants are selected.
- **Deliberation**: the recording/transcript of participant deliberation (once the process is finalised) can be shared with researchers. Conference tools can allow for external people to observe and witness the expert and stakeholder presentations.
- **Decision-making**: the use of digital tools (on open format) can allow for accountability and transparency of how decisions were made after the end of the process.
- **Recommendations**: if participants co-write the recommendations using collaborative tools, it allows for transparency regarding who wrote the final outcome of the process (ability to trace the contributors of the document and the different versions).

#### Evaluation

Digital tools and data collected througout the process can help to better monitor and evaluate the deliberative process. The monitoring of the impact on public decision-making could also be enhanced through the use of digital tools.

- **Evaluation**: The collection and analysis of data can help researchers and policy-makers assess the process (quality of deliberation, polls of participants, evolution of opinion etc.) Publishing this data in a structured and open format can allow for a broader evaluation and contribute to the research in this area. Over the course of the next year, the OECD Secretariat will be preparing evaluation guidelines in accordance with the Good Practice Principles to enable the production of comparative data from a wide range of processes.
- **Impact**: Digital tools can help participants and the general public to better monitor the status of the proposed recommendations and the impact they had on final decision-making. A parallel can be drawn with the extensive use of this methodology by the United Nations for the monitoring and evaluation of the impact of the SDGs.

#### Enhanced deliberation

The use of emerging technologies and digital tools can complement analogue processes and take deliberative processes one step beyond.

- Artificial intelligence (AI): the use of AI-based tools can help deliberative processes in many ways. For example: mapping opinion clusters, consensus building, analysis of massive inputs from external participants in the early stage of stakeholder input.
- Virtual reality:
- Text-based technologies (natural language processing):Can they allow for simultanous translation to other languages, analysis of feelings, and emotions as well as automated transcription?

### 3: What are the limits of using digital tools for deliberative processes?

The use of digital tools in deliberative processes faces the same limitations as in any other participatory process:

- Lack of social interaction: we acknowledge that online interaction cannot have the same effect as face-to-face. Moreover, interesting studies and research have been undertaken on the quality of socialisation in online spaces. The cases of online communities like Anonymous or social bonding during social movements (Occupy, Arab Spring, Sunflower Movement, Indignados) can help up gather evidence on social interaction online. Explore Gabriella Coleman research (The Participatory Condition in the Digital Age and The Many Faces of Anonymous).
- Digital divide (age, skills, access) and how to mitigate it
- Harmful technology (open source vs closed software, dependency on GAFAM, personal data)

## Ideas for further research and discussion

- Could the use of digital tools help to fight low participation rates in local councils?
- If you allow people to participate in permanent deliberative or broad participatory practices from their living room, will this help to fight apathy and "lack of time"?

## Roadmap for publication and outputs

1. Introduction and context by OECD team (Participo)
2. Series of articles on "Digital tools to support deliberative processes" (Participo)
a. Marcin (designing an online assembly)
b. Romain Aubert (Convention Citoyenne pour le Climat)
c. Anthony Zacharzewski / Kelly McBride DemSoc (lessons from experimentation)
d. Jessica Feldman (technical choices behind the digital tools used for deliberation)
e. TBC public institution (Parliamentarians to pledge for the use of digital tools in parliaments?)

4. Deliberation 2.0, digital tools to enhance the Principles of Good Practice for Deliberative Processes for Public Decision-making (transparency+accountability+evaluation) by OG team (Participo)

Post-COVID:

5. Further research on social interaction and facilitated civic engagement online (linked to democratic fitness and Ieva's idea for social bonding after a deliberative process) (Paper with digital collegues?)

6. Reflections on digital governance (Civocracy pitch)
7. Compendium of tools (OECD OG unit + OPSI + DigiGov?)